Funk’s Attack of Gibbons is Sloppy and Untrue
- Tuesday, February 23, 2010, 4:00
- Iowa, News Center, Top Story
- 2,302 views
- 60 comments
Maybe now more than any other time in our Nation’s history, strict adherence to the Constitution and our country’s founding documents is in vogue. As a conservative, this is a welcomed development. Yet, over the past few months, I’ve grown a bit frustrated with the “Constitution or Bust” crowd who rail against anything that is not clearly stated in the Constitution.
It’s one thing when a candidate like Republican Statehouse candidate Tom Shaw pulls the Constitution out of his pocket and says that it gives him the right to carry a firearm. Shaw is correct, the Constitution does grant us the right to own firearms, but Congress has imposed some restrictions, such as that it’s illegal for a convicted felon to be in procession of a firearm. Then, there are others who believe that, if it’s not explicitly written in the Constitution, then the government has over stepped its bounds.
My frustration with the later brand of constitutionalist was elevated at CPAC last week. As I was voting in CPAC’s straw poll, the man standing next to me took issue with the three choices to the question that asked about your core beliefs and ideology. The man filling out his ballot next to me was upset that getting back to the basics of the Constitution was not an option.
Eighty percent of those who voted in the straw poll said that their most important goal is to promote individual freedom by reducing the size and scope of government and its intrusion into the lives of its citizens. The other options were promoting traditional values by protecting marriage and protecting the life of the unborn or guaranteeing a safe and secure America regardless of the cost to the government. While “Constitution” was not an option, I think the answer he was looking for was option number one.
Back here in Iowa, 3rd District Congressional candidate Dave Funk has attacked one of his Republican opponents for saying that the Constitution says that the federal government should be in charge of education. Funk is correct in pointing out that the Constitution doesn’t say anything about federal control of education, but his attack on Jim Gibbons is sloppy and not true.
When asked about the role the federal government plays in education, Gibbons said, “Find for me where in the Constitution does it say that the federal government is in charge of education.” Funk’s press release claimed that Gibbons said, “It[’]s fine for me where the Constitution says that the federal government should be in charge of education.” What a difference a few words can make.
The Gibbons interview was done in a restaurant so the audio isn’t the best, but for the Funk campaign to send out a press release that misquotes Gibbons is wrong. It’s also surprising that someone on Gibbons’ campaign didn’t catch the error and set the record straight immediately. The worst thing that can happen to a campaign is making an attack that isn’t accurate. Had Gibbons fired back, Funk’s campaign would have looked really foolish.
Funk’s press release stated that Gibbons’ comments reflect “a sense of confusion,” but it is ultimately Mr. Funk who is either hard of hearing, confused, or was a little too eager to pull the trigger on one of his opponents. Funk’s and Gibbons’ positions on education are similar. Both agree that education is a state and local issue.
While I am sympathetic to strict constructionist candidates like Funk, we must also realize that the federal government does have its hand in education. The federal government provides for things like Pell grants and allows people to deduct the interest they pay on college loans from their taxes. So when Mr. Funk says, “The federal government has no business sticking its nose in the local classroom[,] and we don’t need anyone in Congress who thinks it has the authority to do so.” Does it mean that he would support the repeal of something like student loan interest deductibility? I hope not.
Like it or not, our Constitution was ratified with a Necessary and Proper Clause that allows Congress to do all sorts of things. Some of these things are very important. For example, I’m sure Mr. Funk is okay with the federal government regulating our country’s air space. Our founding fathers could have never foreseen air travel, but thanks this clause, our country wasn’t confronted with a constitutional crisis once the Wright brothers took to the skies.
My point it this. While it is a good thing to limit the size and scope of government, we must remain reasonable in our attempts to shrink government. Programs like social security are about to bankrupt our country, but as an investor in the program, you can be sure that I will want to at least get my money back out of it. That is why many of us supported the push for individual accounts.
While our Constitution should guide the policies for which we advocate, I’m not necessarily looking for a congressional candidate who’s the strictest constitutionalist in the race. I’m looking for a candidate who will consistently and reasonably work to find ways to shrink the size and scope of government.
I don’t think that is asking too much.
Transcript
Q: No Child Left Behind, what are your thought on federal role in, in education?
A: Ah, You know, I, I think that you got to leave, leave that up, in the most optimum situation, I mean, find for me where the, the, the constitution says that the federal government should be in charge of education. Now, I understand testing, benchmarks, and standards, um, but, you know, a lot of that can be accomplished at the state level. I, I’m concerned, like, I’m concerned, you know, like with what Jonathan Nar-Narcisse has been saying with regard to our, our graduation rates and, uh, uh, it appear that we got some sort of a, a brain drain going on, but that, those things mostly have to be attacked at the state level, and at the local level, you know, uh, but, you know you can’t – bigger is not necessarily better. You came from a, a small school and mo- moved to a larger school. You know kind of what that’s like.
Q: Yeah.
A: You can kind of get lost in the system.
Q: Definitely.
A: And, and along those lines, you know, we’ve got, you know, I’ve got no problem with some, uh, uh, the right to organize labor, right, but when you’re, you’re sitting across from somebody who doesn’t have any vested interest in keeping costs down, that’s an issue.
The audio of the interview can be found here.
The portion on education is around the 19 minute mark.
Photos by Dave Davidson
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=82c14ee2-48d8-4b87-b327-6953f8cf521f)
About the Author
Craig Robinson has written 700 stories on this site.
Craig Robinson serves as the founder and Editor-in-Chief of TheIowaRepublican.com. Prior to founding Iowa's largest conservative news site, Robinson served as the Political Director of the Republican Party of Iowa during the 2008 Iowa Caucuses. In that capacity, Robinson planned and organized the largest political event in 2007, the Iowa Straw Poll, in Ames, Iowa. Robinson also organized the 2008 Republican caucuses in Iowa, and was later dispatched to Nevada to help with the caucuses there. Robinson cut his teeth in Iowa politics during the 2000 caucus campaign of businessman Steve Forbes and has been involved with most major campaigns in the state since then. His extensive political background and rolodex give him a unique perspective from which to monitor the political pulse of Iowa.
60 Comments on “Funk’s Attack of Gibbons is Sloppy and Untrue”
Write a Comment
Gravatars are small images that can show your personality. You can get your gravatar for free today!
You must be logged in to post a comment.
It is Gibbons’ job to correct the problem and set the record straight. Funk also can take some initiative here and use his integrity if indeed he misquoted Gibbons. I cannot hear too well so I did not listen to the audio. I do not believe, however, that it is the job of the Iowa Republican to attack Funk on behalf of Gibbons. You should stay out of it like I have tell my kids. I also thought that the pictures that you posted were dirty pool. You couldn’t have found a picture of Funk where he looks more angry and then post a picture right next to it with a very sweet and innocent looking Gibbons. This is done to convey a point in the story that might not otherwise be true. It is a campaign tactic usually used from a campaign against another campaign, not in unbiased reporting. You have played this game too long Mr. Robinson. Step back and let the candidates go at it.
Christian,
Where is the “attack” here. Craig’s pointing out that what Funk is saying is misleading and a sloppy attack at best.
He’s also critical of Gibbon’s campaign for not being more aggressive in pointing out Funk’s misleading accusations.
Craig is also bringing a bigger point to bear here…Folks like Funk who are strict constitutionalists need to understand that there is a role for the Federal government in things that aren’t directly listed out in the Constitution. Is there a point where the government becomes too intrusive…of course. Is there things the federal government deals with that can be and should be better handled at the state level…absolutely. That’s what Gibbons point was concerning education.
Rigid ideology makes great rhetoric but it never accomplishes much of anything! If you can’t adjust to work with the reality of the situation you are in, you’re pretty much worthless. Reagan had it right, focus on the 75-80% where you find agreement and work from there. Being right idealogically isn’t always the same as doing the right thing.
Most of you folks have some iron or other in these fires and you do tend to be protective of those irons’ reputations.
As a guy with no irons here, I can see that Craig indeed does use his professional skills to shade his writings. CIO sez: “I also thought that the pictures that you posted were dirty pool. You couldn’t have found a picture of Funk where he looks more angry and then post a picture right next to it with a very sweet and innocent looking Gibbons. This is done to convey a point in the story that might not otherwise be true. It is a campaign tactic usually used from a campaign against another campaign, not in unbiased reporting. You have played this game too long Mr. Robinson. Step back and let the candidates go at it.”
That said, it’s not a bad thing for Craig to be doing this. But then neither is it impartial journalism. It is exactly the same tactics, so reviled on here by readers, that the accursed DSMR allegedly does.
Same thing, just different perpetrator.
Not bad or evil. Just what it is and when it is being done, the only people who don’t see it are the people whose guy benefits by the piece.
Pointing out newsworthy facts that happen to make one candidate look bad doesn’t make you biased. It probably makes you a decent reporter. Should that new guy on channel 13 not have asked the obvious question about why it was necessary for Culver to use state dollars to travel around and annouce old news? Would you tell him that it’s not his job to ask those kind of questions or write stories that can make someone look bad?
The Funk people are the ones who tried to make a big deal of this, sending out a press release, all the while being too stupid to realize that their “interpretation” of the interview made no sense of the context of the statement. If they didn’t want the press to cover this attack, they probably shouldn’t have sent out a press release. It’s their own fault that it got turned around on them (because they got it wrong), and now they are pointing fingers as the messenger when they should be looking in the mirror to cast their blame.
I don’t see anything wrong with pointing out such an obvious error. I am inclined to support Brad Zaun so I don’t have a dog in this fight. If Funk is that sloppy and desperate it reflects very poorly upon his campaign.
Jim Gibbons has a good shot at the nomination because he has proved he can raise a lot of money and as a result has started to get support from Republicans in Congress.
But that interview shows he needs a lot of polishing before he would be ready for the general election. I was impressed by the wide variety of topics he was knowledgeable enough to comment on, but his answers tended to ramble. He needs to develop a consistent, overall message and learn how to stay on message.
Very interesting interview.
Christian Ilene Onum
The Gibbons campaign should have corrected this. I included that in my story. Furthermore, reason why I wrote this article is because someone who either works for the Funk campaign or is backing him emailed repeatedly about this release over the last five days.
I listened to the interview before I received the Funk press release. Nothing jumped out at me, so I was a little bit suspicious when I received their press release attacking Gibbons. Since I was on a plane headed to CPAC on Wednesday and had a full slate while in DC I did not have a chance to listen to the interview until I returned.
If I and other people locally and nationally would follow your advice and let the candidates settle the score, there would be no need for this site, the morning and afternoon programming on WHO radio, and that little network called Fox News. If you want to get all your information on this race directly from the press releases each candidate sends out have at it.
As for taking issue with the picture I used of Funk, I have very limited photos of each candidate. Both photos were taken by Dave Davidson. I have used the Funk photo before and nobody complained. So I find it odd to be hearing this criticism now. I think Dave does an incredible job taking photos, but some candidates are more photogenic than others. I you would like to see the photos I have to choose from please send me an email and I will send you the links.
Scott – Ironic point, and dead-on. Were Funk to have gotten his facts straight, this would have received absolutely no coverage. However, since he got it wrong, now it actually gets some coverage. Can’t have it both ways!
Craig don’t get yourself in the middle of primaries. Report what the campaigns give you, and then if Mr Gibbon’s wants to call Mr Funk on the floor for inaccuracy you have a story. Don’t create one yourself. As for your offensive statement on the Constitution and bearing arms, you need to keep in mind, that the law revoking the right to bear arms for felons exists because under the Constitution, felons have no Constitutional Rights. Along with the right to bear arms they also lose the right to vote. Please demand an immediate refund from the University of Iowa, you were over charged. For Pete”s sake I am self taught and understand the Constitution better than that!! If this is what the U of I is cranking out it could explain Terry Branstad’s service as Governor.
Damn you Craig for telling the truth!
GhostofLincoln…
Mind telling us where in the Constitution does it say that felons have no Constitutional rights? Does that mean that once someone is released after serving time for a felony offense they lose the right of freedom of speech? Or to practice what religion they choose? Do they lose the right to own property?
Might want to retrace your steps. As it is the states that have passed laws creating collateral consequences of criminal conviction…not the US Constitution.
I’ll get this out of the way. I am voting for Funk so any of you that want to claim I’m just a looney Funk guy – whatever.
I just listened to the interview. I heard very clearly Craig, that he said “It’s fine for me where the constitution says should the federal government should be in charge of education.” You can get to this part at 19:35 and it will pop up in five to ten seconds.
What frustrates me is that everyone here juts accepts the transcript posted by Craig. He is dead wrong and may need a new pair of headphones.
In term of context. It actually makes perfect sense. He says he’s fine with it. Says he understands testing. Than says but and get’s into states rights.
Whether or not you like Funk there are two things here: The statement is in fact true. Gibbons said that and ALL OF YOU should go listen to it before you assume that Craig is right because he is not.
Second, it’s not about just doing precisely what the Constitution says with no regard to interpretations. It’s about the fact that a potential Congressman doesn’t know what it does and does not say so it can be correctly interpreted as the Founding Fathers meant it.
Craig, You’re attack is sloppy and mistaken. You need to go listen to it again. Here’s a clue. You missed the “it’s” in front of where you put “find” and there was no break between the two. Not only does it sound like, It’s fine, but “it’s find” without a break makes no sense at all.
It sickens me people trust Craig’s findings without verifying them.
Hey Craig – Did you ever consider that the Gibbons campaign didn’t correct it because it was in fact, correctly quoted and you heard wrong??? Hmmmm.
Craig – Give me your email and I’ll segment the audio into that one section for you so you can hear it better.
I stand by my transcript. I listened to this thing over and over again. Gibbons was stuttering and searching for the right words. I don’t even know where you guys are getting the word “It’s” from.
Cast his whole issue aside – I don’t think the argument made by some of you that Craig should remain neutral and stay out of it is correct. THIS IS A BLOG FOR HEAVEN SAKES! Since when did a blog not have the right to endorse or back a particular candidate. How about you go yell at Erick Erickson at RedState.com for doing the same then. Is it any different from what Demint and RedState have been doing? No! Craig has every right to endorse or push his own agenda through this blog. If you have issue with it then stop reading the blog. I doubt enough of you can boycott this site though to make much of a difference. It is such a niche site that it will always draw the same type of advertisers that it does currently. Craig has every right to speak out.
Now to you Craig. I understand what you are saying but I don’t think you understood the message Funk was trying to put across. Plus, I think you might want to listen to this more carefully. I’m not so sure your transcript is totally correct. I could easily be wrong because I’m not perfect.
At the same time, I think the message you tried expressing in this article about how we need to follow the Constitution but also be reasonable is accurate. I agree.
In the end this is of little importance. Few people actually will read this article and most that do already have made their decision on who they are going to vote for anyway. So throw Funk and Gibbons aside, your message was correct.
You rethugs are a screwy lot; right here on TIR alone, on the one hand you hate professional politicians and naively wish for part-time legislators – you know farmers and mechanics and moose-dressing mothers, but then you turn around and demand that those same legislators have statesman-like understandings of the Constitution.
@Cosnervative Demo: Yes. and Yes.
Hey Craig – I’m curious to hear what Gibbons has to say about it. What does he say he said??? You should have called him to find out before you posted this.
I just got me a good pair of headphones and listened to what the audio said and it was this: “It’s fine for me where the constitution says should the federal government should be in charge of education.” The exact same thing it says in the posting by “The Ignorant” It is very clear what he says. Makes to me a lot of sense why Ignorant is so fired up. Craig’s transcript is wrong. Now I understand why Gibbons has said nothing about it. Just FYI, I have no dog in this fight. I am leaning toward Zaun.
I listened to it several times, and Craig’s transcript is absolutely accurate. I listened with good quality headphones, and he does stutter just before the sentence in question, but it was quite clear (particularly when the take the tone of voice into account and the context of the rest of his remarks), that Gibbons was making an imperative sentence challenging someone to show that the federal government is supposed to have a role in education because it’s not in the constitution.
Ryan, I mean, TheIgnorant, they have these new things called earwax removal kits. You can find one at your local drug store. Either that or upgrade to the Sony earphones. Most computer speakers suck.
If he said, “I’m fine with…” federal control of education, then why does he spend the rest of the time talking about how testing and benchmark and graduation rates should be addressed at the state and local level?
First, WTH. Ryan? Is everyone that backs Funk Ryan? Second. It’s called a transition. He doesn’t offend the Mods by saying he understands it. Then he satisfies the Conservatives by saying a lot can be addressed at local level.
Craig got the transcript right (though I wouldn’t include the stutters, etc. When I read Funk’s press release I was trying to figure out where he was getting that.
And I’m the one who conducted the interview! Which I apologize for the audio, one day when I make the bigs and achieve Craig Robinson status that will all change
I do have one issue with your transcript though. I asked him his thoughts, not his thought on education.
Here is a link to the quote. We have removed the background noise so you can clearly hear the Coaches statement; http://congressneedsfunk.s3.amazonaws.com/Gibbons.mp3
I stand by my press release.
Dave Funk
Dave-o give me a call
Dr FeelGOOD, I don’t have your number, email it to me through my website.
I’ll stick to the untainted audio and the interviewers statement listed above.
Captain Dave, I listened to your link and it sounds like he said, “Find for me…” but I’m just a guy listening to a link on the internet. My question for you, though, is why take a chance on an ambiguous quote? Pilots are careful, calculated people, right? So why take unnecessary risk with your campaign? Makes you appear desperate.
Maybe you have additional training I don’t know about. Couldn’t find it on your bio page. What is your college degree in?
Hawk CR 1 I will not retrace my steps. The law that revokes the right to bear arms for felons has been determined Constitutional since no one has challenged it in the U.S. Supreme Court. Since the U.S. Supreme Court has jurisdiction over interpreting the Constitutional rule of law, and they have not declared it Unconstitutional. It is Constitutional. Now since a felon has no Constitutional recourse for the loss of that second amendment right, under the legal system we currently have of past precedent, it makes it hard for a person convicted of any felony to have equal protection under the law. Hence a convicted felon technically has no legal right of recourse or shall I say will have a hard time seeking redress of rights violated under the Constitution with the stigma of Convicted Felon in his profile. I didn’t say the Constitution allows for Convicted Felons to be treated inhumanely, and not as citizens. It simply makes it hard for them to access the legal system,under the rights Non-Felons have Constitutionally. What happend did you fall asleep during Business Law? Or are they teaching it different these days.
It has been snowing for way too long in Iowa. This is a non-article. The Gibbons dude is really inarticulate. He has a hard time spitting words out and when he does they don’t make a lot of sense. Funk should get on his case for being a dofus, not for allegedly taking a non-Conservative opinion. I guess this guy is a big shot because he used to wrestle, not because of his strong and well-articulated policy positions. Glad I live in Steve King’s district and don’t have to choose between Boswell and a guy who apparently has only distinguished himself in wrestling.
Craig,
Since you mentioned Tom Shaw in this piece (which I don’t know why). I need to clarify That Tom does not support Felons getting guns. A link to the whole forum unedited and in context can prove this http://www.patriotsteaparty.net/shawrichards.html. Just some friendly advice to help clear up that issue with Tom since it’s been mention twice already.
GOL…this was your quote from above:
“because under the Constitution, felons have no Constitutional Rights.” You still have yet to answer the question… Where in the Constitution does it state that felons have no constitutional rights?
You’re trying to make an argument that the Constitution some how takes away Constitutional rights to felons…which is NOT the case whatsoever. States are the ones who have created those laws restricting those rights to convicted felons.
If we were go on a “Constitution or bust” route…that would mean that you could NOT prohibit felons from carrying firearms or voting or serving on juries, etc because the Constitution does not explicitly prohibit it.
The reason why the courts have upheld those state laws is because of the 10th Amendment….That that powers not granted to the national government nor prohibited to the states by the Constitution of the United States are reserved to the states.
And..you are incorrect again…a felon DOES have legal recourse to apply for the reinstatement of civil rights that were revoked by being convicted of a felony offense. Nearly every state has a legal process by which a convicted felon may regain the right to vote, possess firearms., serve in office, etc.
Wow, how old are you all? Obviously some of you can’t hear. It definitely sounds like Gibbons said “it’s.” I said it sounds that way, not that he said it beyond reasonable doubt. A stutter and noise could have caused it. This is all pretty dang funny. Quite frankly I don’t care and I don’t think this will affect either candidate. At the end of the day this is meaningless. This won’t change any of your opinions.
At the end of the day I learned one thing: GIBBONS IS A HORRIBLE ORATOR! I guess not everyone can speak well. I don’t necessarily speak well either. But he sure can raise money.
Dave-o you know my number. Give me a call bud. I know you need to FeelGOOD
HawkCR1 This is the last lesson I am going to give you on the legal system and the Constitution. If a law is not determined UNCONSTITUTIONAL it means the Law is LEGAL under the Constitution. Since laws exist barring Felons from owning guns and those laws have not been found unconstitutional, they are constitutional whether they are State or Federal laws. Since the only peaceful way to seek redress when your Constitutional Rights are violated is the legal process, and we have concluded that Constitutionally Felons have lost their Constitutional right to bear arms. It can be assumed that under the Constitution Felons have no Constitutional Rights. You bring up the ACLU mantra of Civil Rights in your argument very Liberal of you. Your equation of Constitutional rights being reinstated in states I.E. right to vote, possess firearms, serve in office etc just made my case for me. You do understand that Felony Charges are tried in U.S. District Court don’t you? Conservatives believe in Human Rights (Rights Granted by God) and Constitutional rights protected in the Constitution. Notice the order I put those in. Without Rights granted by God there is no Constitution.
GhostofLincoln..
If you don’t want to justify your previous statement that “under the Constitution, felons have no rights”…thats your deal.
You’re the one that is trying to make the justification that somehow, the Constitution takes away those rights…when its not the Constitution doing that at all….its LAWS passed by legislatures across this country that do so.
You also try to assert that felons have no redress to get their rights back..which again..is completely wrong. Apparently our Founding Fathers must have been “very liberal” as they gave the President the authority to issue pardons and commutations.
Quit digging the hole deeper for yourself…you’re only making yourself look more foolish in the process.
Ghost, you seem to have picked up some evangelical religion since you got the the hole in your head. Now I’ll grant that I only know you by what Carl Sandburg wrote, but he didn’t mention anything to lead me to consider your believing anything beyond basic deism.
“United States v. Synnes (1971) recognized the existence of “the right to keep and bear arms,” but correctly saw no conflict between the disarmament of felons “and the Second Amendment since there is no showing that prohibiting possession by felons obstructs the maintenance of a “well regulated militia.” Felons may be disarmed not because the Second Amendment fails to protect individual rights, but because felons forfeit civil rights by engaging in crime. “In essence, since there is support for the proposition that it is eminently reasonable to categorize convicted aggressors as a separate class whose individual right to bear arms may be prohibited, there can be no violation of a constitutionally protected right of defendant under the Second Amendment,” so held United States v. Wiley (1970). The Second Amendment provides an individual right to the non-felon to possess common firearms regardless of any militia use. In the words of United States v. Bowdach (1976), “possession of the shotgun by a non-felon has no legal consequences. U.S. Const. Amend. II.” Source: “That Every Man Be Armed,” Stephen P. Halbrook
Conservative Dem- Thank God finally a guy as conservative as Stephen Douglas to debate. Your posting name does you honor. You truly are a Conservative Dem. Yes I have had a bit of an evangelical conversion up here in Minnesota.
I congratulate you for bring up Carl Sandberg. It is so refreshing, HawkCR1″s level of education seems to be on the level of Carl Sandberg used to play second base for the Chicago Cubs, and is currently managing the Des Moines Cubs. Which i don’t blame him for, the education system and MTV let him down. Thanks for bringing the difference up and I will be looking forward to your posts in the future. By the way, why would you want to be part of a party that will not let Social Conservatives speak at their gatherings. Stephen Douglas would have thought that a little narrow minded wouldn’t you. You know there is such a thing as Log Cabin Republicans and GOPRIDE they aren’t real Republicans but at least they are allowed to speak. (Especially if you have about $1500 for GOPAC tickets) 
My take on this is:
First, it seems rather a silly point over which to make this much of a fuss. From any point of view. OK, so let’s say Gibbon’s supports the statist proNEA position. So what? We already know that he is the liberal? So why make a major case of it?
Second, I listened to the audio posted: It does sound to me like Funk got it right. So, Craig, you need to step it up and do the mia cupla, before you come across as a Paid for by Gibbons guy.
Thirdly: I agree with thinker. The real story here aught to be how terrible of a speaker is Gibbons. WOW. Talk about not ready for prime time. He may have the biggest rolodex, but he’s also the worst as a candidate.
Let’s not forget that the guy who conducted the interview backed me up.
Ghost of Lincoln: I’ve always wanted to ask you a question.
Other than the whole “bullet in the head thingy”, how was the play?
And regarding Mr. Funk’s interpretation of Mr. Gibbons’ statement, I’m going to rely on Occam’s Razor to help me make sense of this fauxtroversy.
On one hand, we’ve got a fuzzy recording giving the impression that Mr. Gibbons said something that’s contradicted by the context presented in the rest of his answer. On the other hand, we’ve got the MAN WHO CONDUCTED THE INTERVIEW saying that Craig’s interpretation of the answer is correct. Yeah, this is going to take some time to figure out. /sarc. off
Uhmm ghost, please don’t saddle me with ’social’conservative. I am old-school conservative and detest the way the churchies have appropriated the noun and now demand that it _only_ apply to their brand.
Craig, I would challenge your premise that Pell grants and student loan interest deductibility are a benefit to our society. Simply put, it is providing favorable treatment of one group of people at the expense of another, and it is a glaring example of what is wrong with our government. Everyone has their justifiable sacred cows. But lest you forget who gets the bill, government can’t help one person without screwing someone else. In addition, by making large blocks of money available for a specific purpose, the net result is that it gets more expensive because the price charged is what the market will bear. Free money has made college more accessible but much more expensive. Note the difference between the rate of increase in tuition over the last 30 years compared to the inflation rate if you don’t believe me.
The other side of the aisle is using the same kind of screwed up logic to justify Obamacare, yet that is terrible? If one is bad, then they both are bad.
If a used car guy can figure that out, anyone should be able to.
yeah, if there were no federal student loans or pell grants we would all buy used cars wouldn’t we? go drag your knuckles back to your car lot.
I love how the mere mention of the word Constitution makes everyone think they are a tenured scholar of Constitution law, or that they alone can channel the founding fathers.
Kudos to those few of you who agree the major story with this interview is how bad the interview is. Not quite Sarah Palin-Katie Couric bad, but this sounds like an interview with a random inarticulate guy in a coffee shop, not an interview with a Congressman in a coffee shop.
just listened to the entire interview….have to agree with many of the other comments here…..that is CLEARLY a not ready for prime time candidate.
Secondly, Craig….after listening to the specific quote, is seems Funk’s press release holds true. It seems you owe an apology to Funk as well as the Gibbons campaign for even bringing this up.
Apparently Ryan, I mean, Mirage still doesn’t get it. Russ pretty much summed it up in a nutshell.
“On one hand, we’ve got a fuzzy recording giving the impression that Mr. Gibbons said something that’s contradicted by the context presented in the rest of his answer. On the other hand, we’ve got the MAN WHO CONDUCTED THE INTERVIEW saying that Craig’s interpretation of the answer is correct. Yeah, this is going to take some time to figure out.”
Scott….
Oh..I get it alright. ..and reading something twice doesn’t make it more true. Fact is, this whole thing makes republicans look very poor, from the really poor interview, to the Funk blasting of a technical point, to the Gibbons campaign non-response, to the TIR article, which seems very sloppy and biased on it’s face given the clear evidence.
This little event is bad for all parties involved.
And by clear evidence, you mean the context and the interpretation of the interviewer?
Yes….I do mean the context. The “but” would not be there otherwise, as has been stated before.
As for the interview/interviewer, they seem not to have heard the same comment I clearly heard and Shane has a right to opinion even if wrong, and beyond that after reading Shane’s own high praise for his own interview in the DSM Register, I am not sure he heard ANY part of the same interview the rest of us did…..an interview that I am not the first to say here was horrible and did NOT present the candidate in a good light.
Um, this never would have happened had Funk not started this nasty attack to begin with. So, there’s a good place to start for blame.
Darn it Russ !! I am a dead President not a a critic for Variety!!
@mirage – first off I don’t have a favorite in this race, but having conducted the interview and listened to it again I’m backing Craig’s transcript.
Secondly since you decided to get snarky with me, I wonder if you know what “high praise” is? For the rest of the commenters/readers who perhaps didn’t see my DMR post – http://blogs.desmoinesregister.com/dmr/index.php/2010/02/13/jim-gibbons-tough-minded-and-energized-to-win/. Summarizing the interview isn’t “high praise.” But thanks for painting me to be a self-absorbed narcissist.
Shane…as you can read the many comments above, you will see for yourself that many (not JUST me) are critical of that entire interview, and state that the interview does not paint that candidate in a good light at all. Frankly, most of those issues are not of your doing, but more of a rambling, non-focused not very prepared candidate. Yet, even after that performance, you summarize that interview in a headline that paints the interview highly differently from the conclusion many of us obviously have after hearing it. That is your editorial right. Frankly, it is a difference of opinion. Critical opinion in the above comments have not been at all personal.
It seems you chose not to take critical comments too well, but the words “self-absorbed narcissist” are yours not mine.
Relax……others have opinions…..JUST like you expressed.
The title of my post used words the candidate chose to identify himself, not my words, ergo not editorializing.
Shane, take a look at the paragraph on your website with the story that begins with “I forgot to ask him about earmarks”, and tell me you are not “editorilizing” in that paragraph. It make one wonder if you really listened to the interview at all while conducting it.
Your judgements in that paragraph are far different and so at odds with many that have posted on this subject here and all that I have talked to person that have really listened to the interview.
Again, nothing personal and a simple difference of opinion.